Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You're being dishonest AGAIN.
Debt to GDP.
It shrunk under Reagan, AND we had unprecedented peace time growth
If you're going to apply that metric to Obama why won't you apply it to Reagan ?
I'm applying no metric to Obama. I'm saying that economics in the US took a turn south when Reagan took the reigns, and we've been the biggest debtor country since. And I said I'm unimpressed with current economic policies as well.
LOL !!
What color is the sky in your world ?
35 Million new jobs, and a unprecedented peace time growth.
But to you, things " got worse economically " ??
WTH ?
You know, people wouldn't mock criticism of the increase of the ND currently, if the critics acknowledged Reagan's tripling of it and Bush's doubling of it. And the 35 million figure was debunked.
LOL !!
What color is the sky in your world ?
35 Million new jobs, and a unprecedented peace time growth.
But to you, things " got worse economically " ??
WTH ?
I think it was more like 22 million new jobs.
Regardless, Johnson, Carter and Clinton all had more job creation per month that Reagan did. Notice that they are all three democrats. Go figure.
I found this chart at that radical leftist publication called "Forbes Magazine":
Adjusted for the overall size of our population and economy, looks to me that EVERY democrat probably created more jobs per month than Reagan except for Obumber, although I have to admit that Reagan seem to have the best economy of all republican presidents, which probably explains why he is worshiped by Republicans - he was obviously the best of the Republican presidents.
Actually it was 35 Million, as per a 2000 Joint economic commission.
And 92 straight months of economic growth.
The mitigations from the left are expected, and a bit boring considering they've been addressed as hackery based on partisanship again and again.
Your arbitrary " adjustments " are just your way of mitigating away his accomplishments because they contradict your ideology.
I think thats a bit desperate.
To be fair, that sounds like what you're doing?
I'm not trying to mitigate away historical data because it contradicts my ideology.
Im simply posting the data.
The truth happens to align with my ideology because I use truth to define my ideology.
Not the other way around like so many leftist.
Your interpretation of it is an attempt to mitigate it.
My interpretation ?
LOL ! No, youe not getting it. I'm simply posting data from the 2000 Joint economic commission that stated that under Reagans administration 35 Million jobs were created.
There's no reason for ne to mitigate Reagan's numbers.
I happen to be a proud Conservative.
YOU haven't debunked anything, let alone the 35 Million new jobs created during the Reagan administration.
Or the 92 straight months of economic growth, or the decreased in spending per GDP .
You'll never "debunk" anything considering your twisted Bush obsession and or your generic and corrupted left wing positions.
You've politicized every issue, traded away objectivity and truth for a long list of false narratives and talking points.
And that's YOUR problem, not mine.
It depends on how you look at it, and what metrics you chose to ignore and which ones you chose to use as examples and how you adjust those figures (inflation, population growth, percent of GDP, etc). One can make an argument either way.
Growth of discretionary spending has been lower under Obama than any other recent president. If you want to lower non-discretionary spending, you need to look to congress to cut social security and medicare.
Regardless, under Obama, our deficit has so far increased by a much smaller percent than under Reagan.
YOU haven't debunked anything, let alone the 35 Million new jobs created during the Reagan administration.
Or the 92 straight months of economic growth, or the decreased in spending per GDP .
You'll never "debunk" anything considering your twisted Bush obsession and or your generic and corrupted left wing positions.
You've politicized every issue, traded away objectivity and truth for a long list of false narratives and talking points.
And that's YOUR problem, not mine.
I think it's quite obvious, you would be the obsessed one.
I just googled "a 2000 Joint economic commission". The only reference to it was a link back to your post (which is kinda cool in itself).
What a bunch of bull****
Your source is lying to you by switching between debt and deficit as if they are the same word.
Who added the most to the debt during their presidency, Bush or Obama?
" The Great Expansion " How can it be achieved and how can it be sustained ".
Google that, add your own arbitrary adjustments, post some left wing drek again that confuses Debt and Deficit again.
Do what ever you need to do to make yourself feel better.
The business cycle expansion from 2001 to 2007 was the weakest on record for job growth and was the first business cycle on record where median household incomes did not grow. Indeed, income of the typical working-age household dropped by $2,180 between 2000 and 2007.
Yes, I'm a bit obsessive whem it comes to the truth.
It is what it is. You don't think that the CBO is a legitimate source?
One day you will realize that actual economic history almost never supports conservative rhetoric. It took me years to discover that. Sorry I hurt your feelings with facts.
That's subjective. Meanwhile, we've been burdened with national debt for 35 years, both parties nearly equally contributing to it, receding economy and political gridlock, and blaming it all on one person or party seems the best solution to you.:roll:
They are CBO numbers fed through TPM propaganda. The CBO didn't create those charts. TPM is the one trying to make debt and deficit mean the same thing.
No hurt feelings. You gave in to TPM propaganda. I also realize you refused to answer my simple question about who added the most to the national debt, sorry if that fact hurts your feelings.
Our national debt has grown under every recent president, and generally, each president has exceeded the previous in national debt growth.
Indeed it has, and Obama is on pace to more than double the debt rise under Bush. This is why the budget growth argument is utter bull crap meant to hide the actual numbers.
Even giving ALL of the 2009 budget to Bush (which is questionable given that Obama signed the Omnibus Bill that funded half of the 2009 budget) Obama has still equaled Bushes 8 year debt in 5 years.
We have had a national debt for every year except for one in the 236 year history of this country. That year was 1837, and we went into a depression that year.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?